Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sgeo20
Download by: [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] Date: 05 February 2016, At: 03:46
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography
ISSN: 0029-1951 (Print) 1502-5292 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20
Rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’ pursuit of own interests in the host community
Maja Farstad
To cite this article: Maja Farstad (2011) Rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’
pursuit of own interests in the host community, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65:3, 165-174, DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2011.598551
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2011.598551
Published online: 01 Sep 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 301
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’ pursuit of own interests in the host community
MAJA FARSTAD
Farstad, M. 2011. Rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’ pursuit of own interests in the host community.Norsk Geografisk TidsskriftNorwegian Journal of GeographyVol. 65, 165174. ISSN 0029-1951.
Many second home owners demand rights, benefits, and influence in their host community, and the article examines how second home owners in pursuit of their interests can gain acceptance among local residents. The analysis is based on interviews with local residents in four rural Norwegian second home municipalities. The findings show that local residents’ attitudes towards second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests in the host community depend to a large degree upon the residents’ perceptions of the outcome of second home tourism in their municipality. Local residents can tolerate second home owners’ demands as long as the second home owners satisfy some of the community’s significant economic-material or social needs. When second home owners make demands while their presence does not bring any evident benefits to the host community they are perceived as trying to take without giving. Based on these findings, the author argues that it is not second home owners’ (objective) otherness from locals that is the main problem in cases of a conflictual climate between the two parties. Rather, it is the local structural context that constitutes the main problem if it does not make it possible for second home owners to contribute to the host community.
Keywords:conflicts, host communities, interests, second home owners
Maja Farstad, Centre for Rural Research, Universitetssenteret Dragvoll, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
In recent years, increased demands for second homes among the Norwegian population has been perceived as bringing new opportunities for local economic growth and develop- ment for rural municipalities. Many rural areas welcome second home development, and based on the relatively high ratio of second homes to residents, more than two-thirds of the rural municipalities in Norway today can be defined as second home municipalities (Farstad et al. 2009). Thus, in many rural areas, second home tourism has reached an extent that local communities are more or less characterized by the presence of second home owners.
As Mu¨ller et al. (2004) point out, second home owners differ from other tourists in several ways: they are likely to stay for longer periods of time, they return to the same place repeatedly, and they own property in their chosen destina- tion. Second home owners also seem to have a degree of interest in a given area that distinguishes them from other kinds of tourists. In many Norwegian municipalities, second home owners have formed associations to ensure or advance common interests. Further, numerous Norwegian newspaper articles report cases where second home owners have taken action through letters to local authorities, by threatening to boycott local shopping, or by engaging lawyers in support of help their causes. Mobilization and activities of this type reflect how many second home owners insist that their views are taken into account in different ways in their host community.
Considering that second home owners demand different rights, benefits, and influence, this article explores the opinions of local residents on second home owners who pursue their own interests in the host community. This is assumed to be a relevant focus because second home owners and local residents have different connections to the same place, especially when it comes to the significance and
implications of local citizenship. At the same time, this focus reveals the position that rural residents think second home owners should have in the community with respect to various rights and influence.
A general conflictual relationship between second home owners and local residents may develop if there is no common understanding of the position that the former should have in the host community. As mentioned earlier, many second home owners believe they should be taken into consideration by members of their host community.
Whether or not their expectations and claims are legitimate from a more objective point of view clearly needs to be addressed, but this is not the focus of this article. However, as long as second home owners continue to make demands, good relationships between the two parties suggests that rural residents tolerate second home owners’ persuit of their own interests in the host community.
While several second home researchers have focused on second home owners’ attachment to a given place or host community (Kaltenborn 1997a; 1997b; Aronsson 2004;
Clendenning & Field 2005; Stedman 2006a; 2006b; Tuulentie 2006; 2007; Flemsæter 2009), second home owners’ pursuit of rights and influence in host communities has just briefly been mentioned as a relevant aspect of the second home phenom- enon (e.g. by Halseth 1998; Mu¨ller 2002b; Kaltenborn et al.
2009). The present article presents the findings of empirical analytical research on this particular issue, from the perspec- tive of rural residents, and aims to contribute new insights into the challenge of what at times can be a conflictual climate between full-time and part-time residents.
Conflicts are seldom the main focus within the second home literature (an exception is Overva˚g & Berg 2009).
However, previous research on second home tourism has focused to a considerable degree on the possible negative social impacts of second home tourism on host communities (Mu¨ller et al. 2004; Marjavaara 2008), and such impacts are Norsk Geografisk TidsskriftNorwegian Journal of GeographyVol. 65, 165174. ISSN 0029-1951
DOI 10.1080/00291951.2011.598551#2011 Norwegian Geographical Society
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
assumed to generate opposition towards second home tourism in general among permanent residents. Among these impacts, the displacement of traditional permanent populations has been emphasized and debated (Coppock 1977; Gallent et al. 2005; Marjavaara 2008) and also partly related issues such as gentrification and class distinctions have been highlighted in this context. These are all impacts that follow from the negative economic effects of second homes (Gallent et al. 2005, 36) or, more specifically, from second home owners’ generally higher levels of economic capital.
When it comes to conflicts between local residents and second home owners more concretely, differences between local residents and second home owners have often been understood as problematic (e.g. Mu¨ller 2002a; Mu¨ller et al.
2004; Marjavaara 2008; Overva˚g & Berg 2009). The research literature suggests that particular characteristics of second home owners, such as urban values and lifestyles and also the wish to ‘conserve’ their second home environments, can explain conflicts between second home owners and local residents, as second home owners’ interests will often contrast with those of local residents. This article will shed some new light on this understanding of the relationship between local residents and second home owners, by examining whether or how local residents are able to accept second home owners’
pursuit of their own interests in the community.
Local citizenship and the symbolic construction of communities
Citizenship may be conceptualized as ‘a bundle of rights and obligations that formally define the legal status of a person within a state’ (Turner 2001, 11). Since the owners of second homes in Norway are mainly Norwegian (Arnesen &
Overva˚g 2009), both rural residents and second home owners are citizens of the same national political commu- nity. However, citizenship is largely exercised on a more local scale (Lowndes 1995; Woods 2006), and in Norway each of the 430 municipalities constitutes such a local scale. Each municipality has a geographically defined territory which constitutes its political and administrative unit, and many civic rights and responsibilities of the individual, such as local suffrage, welfare services, and various taxes and charges, exist at this level.
Second home owners in Norway are not registered as residents of their host municipality unless their first home is also located within the same municipality. However, Norwe- gian national legislation secures several rights for second home owners, including the right to necessary medical help and health care, and general property rights. However, their status restricts their rights, as under national law local suffrage can only be exercised in the municipality where one is formally registered. Thus, second home owners are not members of the political community in the host munici- pality, and do not have a formal right to influence local politics. However, some second home owners resort to alternative methods to influence local decisions.
As (local) citizenship partly concerns the rights and responsibilities that define the legal status of individuals
within a municipality, it also represents a state of belonging (Kymlicka & Norman 1994; Woods 2006). Although the fact that people share the same locality does not necessarily result in the development of a sense of community (Lowndes 1995), local citizenship is nonetheless geographically de- fined, and community feelings are understood to be closely attached to this phenomenon. In Turner’s (2001, 11) words:
‘[a]lthough citizenship is a formal legal status, it is, as a consequence of nationalism [/‘municipalism’] and patriotic sentiment, intimately bound up with the sentiments and emotions of membership.’
While citizenship is formal and ‘objective’, community membership can be understood as a more informal and symbolically constructed phenomenon. The concept of community refers to a group of people who have something in common, which in turn generates a sense of belonging (Cohen 1992; Crow & Allan 1994). Crow & Allan (1994) point to how community ties can develop based on common residence, interests, attachments, or other shared experi- ences. Local citizens within a rural municipality often share several of these aspects, in addition to being local co-citizens.
According to Anderson (2006), any community that is not sufficiently small or geographically assembled to allow for face-to-face contact between its members is actually an imagined community. Local citizens of a Norwegian rural municipality are unlikely to know all of their fellow citizens or even have heard of many of them, yet ‘in the minds of each of them lives the image of their communion’ (Anderson 1996, 6). Cohen (1992) also focuses on subjective under- standings of community, and underlines the significance of communities’boundaries. As members of a group of people have something in common, this commonality also distin- guishes them from members of other putative groups (Cohen 1992, 12). Cohen (1992, 7) further underlines that, ‘[to] draw the line between a community’s members and non-members is crucial to the process of constructing communities’.
Lamont & Molna´r (2002), who have focused on such
‘boundary work’ in general, describe symbolic boundaries as conceptual distinctions made by social actors and used as tools to define reality.
Identification and interests
While much of the theoretical explanation of the concept of community seems to emphasize social ties and the feeling of belonging to a larger whole, the symbolic construction of communities also involves a rational element. Townsend &
Hansen (2001, 2357) clarify the rational aspect of commu- nity by underlining that ‘the concept and rhetoric of community is frequently used to divide, to exclude, and to justify differential treatment and access.’ Similarly, Lamont
& Molna´r (2002) point out that symbolic boundaries often work as a medium to secure a monopoly over resources.
The symbolic construction of communities is part of human identity processes, and the rational aspect of symbolic community construction is further illustrated by Jenkins’
(2008) theoretical work on identity. Jenkins (2008, 18) explains identity as an active and continuous process, where suchidentificationis defined as ‘the systematic establishment
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
and signification, between individuals, between collectivities, and between individuals and collectivities, of relationships of similarity and difference’. With regard to the distinction between similarity and difference, identity and identification are as much about identification of others as identification of oneself/one’s own group. Classification is an important part of identity processes, and according to Jenkins (2008) such classification is rarely neutral or disinterested. In relation to this, he also points out that identification and interests are not easily distinguished: ‘[i]dentification is, at the very least, consequential and reciprocally entailed in the specification and pursuit of individual and collective interests’ (Jenkins 2008, 78).
As local co-citizens, rural residents have a collective interest in protecting the (often scarce) resources belonging to their municipality. Second home owners’ demands in their host community generally concern access to rights, privi- leges, and influence, and hence the distribution of local resources through the allocation of benefits (and burdens) in the municipality. Jenkins (2008, 198) points out that
‘[i]dentity is consequential in terms of allocation’, as how individuals or groups are identified may influence what and how much they receive. Such allocation is based on categorizing judgements about whether or not (potential) recipients qualify (Jenkins 2008, 189). Stereotypes of ‘the deserving’ and ‘the undeserving’ are central in this matter, and these stereotypes often inform policy and administrative allocation. However, they are also, as Jenkins underlines, salient in everyday thinking. Such stereotyping, reflecting an underlying notion of fairness, appears as ‘a means of ensuring that the deserving are not deprived of scarce resources by the undeserving’ (Jenkins 2008, 193).
In the analysis presented in this article I will focus on what happens when second home owners, as part-time residents, make demands. I will address the following research ques- tions:
. How are second home owners defined by local residents?
. Do local residents see second home owners as belonging within their community’s boundaries or outside?
. Do local residents defend what they see as ‘theirs’ or do they tolerate second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests?
Jenkins’ focus on classification of ‘the deserving’ and ‘the undeserving’ demonstrates the consequences of being categorizedand/oridentifiedby administrative systems, but does not clarify whether community belonging and collec- tive identity are significant to ‘everydaycategorizers’ in this regard. Thus, it is relevant to ask: Do second home owners need to be identified as community members to be regarded by locals as part of ‘the deserving’ in the host community?
Data and method
The data in this article are drawn from in-depth interviews with registered local residents in four Norwegian rural second home municipalities: Hol, Karlsøy, Finnøy, and Oppdal (Fig. 1). The interviews were conducted for a research project on the social aspect of the second home
phenomenon in rural areas. The four municipalities were selected from different parts of Norway, including coastal and mountainous interior regions. Further, the municipa- lities differ in terms of the number of second homes present, the increase in these during the last decade, and the ratio of second homes to residents. The average sales prices of second homes, which are expected to reflect the general prosperity level of the second home owners, also differ between the selected municipalities.
Prior to the data collection, some interviews were carried out with key informants in the selected municipalities, including relevant employees in the municipal administra- tion and mayors. This was done partly to gain knowledge of the municipalities’ second home policies and issues, and partly to gain access to residents who might participate in interviews. Inhabitants in rural second home municipalities are not equally affected by second home tourism. Hence, to ensure the participation of interviewees with a certain level of awareness of and attitude towards the second home phenomenon in their municipality, key informants were asked to help. Based on their knowledge of the local community, they were asked to suggest typical residents who were likely to have an opinion about the presence of second home owners.
The nominated participants were invited to participate in an interview and received a short questionnaire requesting some personal information. This information enabled me to select rural residents with varied characteristics. In each of the municipalities, variation among the interviewees was ensured regarding gender, age, the place where the partici- pants grew up (city versus countryside), number of years settled in the study municipality, work categories, distance to the closest second homes, and whether they had benefited financially from second home tourism or not. This strategy was chosen to allow participation from interviewees with various experiences and perspectives on second home tourism.
Data were collected between summer 2008 and autumn 2009, from a sample of 25 persons (among them three married couples). In each municipality, either five or six interviews were conducted with individuals or with married couples. The interviews were semi-structured and lasted 12 hours each. As the interviews also formed part of a larger research project, they covered a broad range of issues relating to the second home phenomenon, including the interviewees’ perceptions of second home tourism impacts;
the perceived relationship between residents and second home owners in general, and the interviewees’ relationships to second home owners in particular; and thoughts regard- ing further second home developments in their municipality.
The aim of the in-depth interviews was to gain an understanding of what local residents ascribed meaning to when they assessed what position second home owners should have in the community. The use of a quantitative method could have allowed for statistical generalizations, but the subject of research would have been both difficult and problematic to grasp through standardized question- naires with a limited amount of predetermined response options. In-depth interviews are more explorative and open by nature, and thus met my study objective.
NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 65 (2011) Second home owners’ pursuit of interests in the host community 167
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
The second home municipalities
As mentioned above, Oppdal, Karlsøy, Finnøy, and Hol are four rural second home municipalities which differ in several ways. The municipalities’ geographical location in Norway is shown in Fig. 1.
Oppdal is a mountain municipality in Mid-Norway, with c.6600 inhabitants. It is located c.90 minutes driving time from the city of Trondheim, where a great proportion of its second home owners are settled. Oppdal has been a tourist destination for many decades and is also a popular winter sport area. There arec.3000 second homes registered in the municipality, and during the last decade the number of second homes has increased by 65%. There are several larger
‘second home villages’ in Oppdal. The average price of second homes in the years 20072009 was just under NOK 1.5 million (USD 250,000).
Karlsøy is a coastal municipality in the North of Norway.
It is located approximately one hour from the city of Tromsø by car, and has gradually become an attractive second home municipality for the urban population there. There are almost 2400 residents in Karlsøy, dispersed on five different islands. Second home tourism is the dominant form of tourism. Approximately 600 second homes are registered, and the average price in 20072009 was NOK c.550,000 (USD 92,000). During the last decade the number of second homes has increased by 58%. In several of the communities, the majority of second home owners have family-related Finnøy
Hol Oppdal
Karlsøy
N
14°ETromsø
Arctic Circle
− 64°N 64°N−
− −
Trondheim
Rural second home municipalities Bergen
Cities where many of the owners of second homes in the selected rural municipalities reside
Oslo Stavanger
200 km 0 100
14°E
Fig. 1. Norwegian rural second home municipalities used as cases
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
attachments to the area. Domestic buildings are increasingly bought and used as second homes, which implies that buildings used as second homes often are located among permanent residences. Several smaller groups of cabins have also been established on Karlsøy.
Hol is a mountain municipality in the eastern part of Norway, withc.4400 inhabitants. It is located approximately three hours driving time from the two largest cities in Norway, Oslo and Bergen, where a large portion of the second home owners in Hol are settled. Like Oppdal, Hol has been a tourist destination and a winter resort area for many decades. There arec.5000 second homes registered in the municipality, following an 18% increase during the last decade. The average price of second homes in Hol was almost NOK 3 million (USD 500,000) in the period 2007 2009. There are several larger ‘second home villages’ in Hol.
Finnøy is a coastal municipality in south-west Norway, and has c.2800 residents settled on 15 different islands.
Although the ‘main island’ now has continental commu- nication, until recently travel to the city of Stavanger (commonly termed the ‘oil capital of Norway’) involved a 90-minute journey using a combination of motor vehicle and ferry. Finnøy has had a lot of second homes for many decades, and during the last decade there has been a moderate increase ofc.10%. There arec.800 second homes registered, and the average price in the period 20072009 was almost NOK 2.2 million (USD 368,000). In addition to second home tourism, Finnøy receives a large number of tourists who arrive by small boats in the summer season.
Second home owners’ demands in the study municipalities
Second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests in the host community was reported by the local residents in all four studied municipalities. Second home owners primarily engage in various matters that directly or indirectly affect their second home property and the nearby recreational environment. Typically, they protest against densification in the second home areas and grazing animals dwelling on their lots. In Karlsøy it was reported that second home owners had protested against various agricultural and other busi- ness activities which affected their environment. Second home owners have also demanded reductions in snow- mobile traffic in recreation areas in Oppdal and Hol, and in Oppdal some also took action against leisure aviation close to their second homes. In Finnøy, second home owners have protested strongly against development of new business activities and the establishment of a central road in their neighbourhood.
Second home owners also try to influence the adminis- tration of the local infrastructure, which they also take advantage of. In Finnøy, some second home owners protested strongly against the removal of a ferry landing as it would it would take them longer to drive to their second homes. In Hol, second home owners often demand faster snow clearance in parking areas and on prepared ski tracks.
Further, second home owners react to issues relating to the economy. Many second home owners took action when the property tax, which includes vacation properties, was introduced in Finnøy, Karlsøy, and Oppdal recently.
Further, in Hol and Karlsøy many second home owners have relatively large landed properties, and some of them apply strong pressure on local authorities in order to secure permission to subdivide their lots and offer them for sale as new second home properties.
In addition, many second home owners try to gain treatment equal to that of local residents in the host community. For example, they demanded equal hunting rights to the locals in Oppdal and Karlsøy. In Oppdal, second home owners expect the same discount as locals on the use of ski lifts, while in Hol they demand the same price for electricity supplies as the locals pay. In Karlsøy, second home owners have protested against a suggestion regarding locals’ right of way concerning the ferry, and they express a wish to participate in different local organizations which to date have been reserved for local residents.
In summary, some members of the second home population in each of the study municipalities have made claims for issues that extended beyond their own real estate to other areas in the municipality which they make use of. Beyond this, their demands concern access to the same privileges as permanent residents enjoy. In the next two sections I will present my analysis, where the interviewees are categorized based on their different opinions about second home owners’
pursuit of own interests in the host community. As will be shown, these opinions appear to have been partly place dependent.
When second home owners are free to make demands
Some of the local residents interviewed in the study expressed a high degree of acceptance towards second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests. In particular, two different conditions appeared to be of importance for having a welcoming attitude towards second home owners when they made their demands for various rights and influence.
Rights for sale
In Oppdal, all of the interviewees expressed the view that second home tourism had significant positive economic- material consequences for their municipality, including increased employment opportunities, a broad and varied assortment of products and services, and a strengthened local economy. Negative impacts related to the second home phenomenon, such as crowded recreation areas and ski slopes and also second home developments in areas of previously untouched nature, were mainly perceived to be less important than the benefits.
The interviewees in Oppdal generally defended the privileges of second home owners. One resident explained that the locals had reduced prices for the use of ski lifts, and
NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 65 (2011) Second home owners’ pursuit of interests in the host community 169
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
that the second home owners were offended because they did not receive the same discounts. She continued: ‘One should have given the second home owners the same discount. . .to get them to feel more satisfied and more welcome and attended to’. When asked if she thought second home owners should be treated the same way as the locals, she answered: ‘Yes, I think so. I want them to feel welcome, and to feel that they are attended to, because of the increase in value that they are creating.’ In this way she wanted the community to reciprocate the second home owners’ eco- nomic contribution by being considerate and inclusive.
Another resident from Oppdal informed how second home owners were engaged in the municipality in various ways, which affected their stays. He was then asked if he thought that second home owners’ voices should be heard regarding different aspects of the development of Oppdal community:
I have to answer yes to that, because our situation depends upon the second home owners enjoying themselves. If the municipality enters into a collision course with those who come from outside and use their leisure time here, if they [the second home owners]
do not enjoy themselves, well, then we have a problem. So actually, one should listen to them, for the municipality’s own sake.
This resident from Oppdal appreciated the economic- material impacts of second home tourism, and thought that second home owners’ perspectives should be considered to ensure the continuation of economic flows. In Oppdal, second home owners threatened to boycott the local trading companies when local authorities wanted to introduce a property tax system which involved second homes. As a result, the residents realized the potential consequences of having discontented second home owners.
Earlier, local property tax was applied only to residential properties within and close to the central area in Oppdal, but today it is applied to the municipality as a whole, and thus, involves second home owners too. One local resident thought this change was unfortunate: ‘Because what they have got here is avacationhome. Many of them are paying property tax in the municipality where they are settled on a regular basis. And besides, they are leaving money behind anyway. They are travelling home, broke and happy, but even happier if they do not have to pay the property tax.’ In this way he argued that the second home owners were contribut- ing enough as it was, and did not think it was right to try to take as much money as possible from this group.
To summarize, the interviewees from Oppdal had few or no problems with the fact that second home owners advanced their interests in the host community. Second home owners’ supply of economic resources to the commu- nity clearly makes the residents identifying them as part of
‘the deserving’ (Jenkins 2008), and hence they accept second home owners’ demands. Even though they do not have much social contact with second home owners, they are positive about their presence in the community and hope that the second home owners enjoy themselves. This shows that second home owners are able to obtain a high degree of acceptance for their demands among the locals, solely by virtue of their purchasing power. In fact, the interviewees in
Oppdal did not focus on the second home owners as either
‘one of us’ or ‘one of them’ when considering the latter’s pursuit of their own interests. The question of identity does not appear to be relevant when the presence of second home owners is perceived to be making a significant contribution to the host community. Instead, the second home owners are seen simply ascontributorswho deserve to receive something in return for what they give. As such, second home owners do not need to be clearly identified as community members to be regarded as falling within ‘the deserving’ category.
Rights as means of integration
In common with the locals in Oppdal, some residents of Karlsøy also ascribed second home owners an advantageous position. Most of the islands of Karlsøy are experiencing depopulation, and some of the interviewees living there were very pleased about the social significance of the second home owners’ presence. These residents thought it was very important for second home owners to be able to integrate into the rural community.
One of the residents of Karlsøy explained the ongoing discussions relating to the establishment of a stone quarry in their village, as people owning a second home located close to this area were protesting strongly against it. When asked whether the second home owners should be heard regarding the further development of the municipality, he replied: ‘Yes, I think so. If second home owners are supposed to be integrated in a community, then one has to integrate them entirely. You cannot include them only in the fields where you want them to participate; they must be invited to join the community in every aspect, really.’
This statement reflects the perspective that second home owners’ opinions should be taken into account on par with the locals’ opinions. The wish totreatsecond home owners as part of ‘the deserving’ can thus be understood as a means to ensure their social integration into the local community.
Some of the interviewees in Finnøy were positive towards taking second home owners’ interests into account for the same reasons as mentioned above. As in the case of Karlsøy, several of the islands of Finnøy are experiencing a reduction in the number of residents, and some interviewees hoped that second home owners would settle on a regular basis: ‘If they are having a pleasant time here, then maybe some of them who have a second home here will find out that ‘‘it is so close to Stavanger, so maybe we could reside in our second home’’’. Thus, for those who see a social value connected to the presence of second home owners, the acceptance of part- time residents’ or potential newcomers’ access to rights, benefits, and influence is understood as a necessary means to achieve social integration. The local residents thus accept second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests because they want to signify that no boundaries are drawn between the two parties. In this way, they aim to ensure that second home owners (‘them’) are encouraged to identify with the locals (‘us’) and become part of the community.
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
Second home owners as guests without rights
While the interviewees mentioned in the above section accepted second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests in their respective host communities, the remaining inter- viewees were opposed to this. The negative attitudes appeared to relate to two different conditions, which will be presented in the following subsections.
No contribution no rights
None of the interviewees in Karlsøy expressed any positive economic-material consequences of second home tourism for their municipality. There, the economic-material con- tribution of second home owners depends mainly on whether or not they use the local grocery stores, which are few in number, as other kinds of services based on payment have not been established. The general apprehension among the interviewees was apparently due to the fact that while second home owners did some of their shopping locally this contribution to the local economy was not crucial to the grocery stores’ existence. In contrast to those interviewees from Karlsøy, who embraced second home tourism for social reasons, others did not perceive second home owners’
social involvement as valuable, and they certainly did not find second home tourism beneficial to their community.
However, these residents were aware of the demands made by second home owners:
We have heard about other communities where there are many second home owners, and where the locals have had to take other considerations than one feels one should do when one lives in a community, and the others actually are just visitors . ... That is the situation. They are on a visit.. . .Even if some of them might have grown up here, they are still visitors. So they should behave properly.
The resident quoted above was negative towards second home owners’ potential influence on community life. In her view, second home owners did not deserve anything as long as they were not full-time residents, with the implications that would entail. Another Karlsøy resident expressed similar sentiments: ‘I think that people could come and rent a cabin, or we could build a guesthouse. If they want to be here, then they can be allowed to rent a room. Then it would be an industry, we would get development here, and then they would be here on avisit. Then they couldn’t try to exert their influence.’ This statement makes visible what some of residents dislike about second home tourism: the host community does not benefit from the second home owners’ presence, but because second home owners have property there they believe they should be taken into account. Second home owners are stereotyped by the local residents as ‘the undeserving’, and this is apparently due to the lack of positive impact of second home tourism on the host community: second home owners make demands, while local residents are of the opinion that nothing is left after their stays. The local residents’ reasoning about second home owners’ position in the community thus seems to reflect the
common principle ‘Do not take without giving’. Collective identity appears to have been highly relevant to the interviewees in this respect, as they clearly emphasized the community boundaries between themselves and second home owners when stating that second home owners as guests should not be accorded any rights in the host community.
Involuntarily dependent upon the rich
All of the interviewees in Hol identified a number of important economic-material benefits that second home tourism contributes to the municipality, such as more employment opportunities and a broader selection of products and services. They perceived the municipality to be dependent upon tourism to a relatively large extent.
However, several of the Hol interviewees were more con- cerned with a perceived class distinction between the local residents and second home owners. They thought that wealthier second home owners acted as though they were superior to the locals, a perception that necessarily creates negative feelings rather than goodwill. The same residents were also negative towards second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests and expressed concerns regarding the potential power of second home owners’ in the community, related to their higher economic capital. They informed that second home owners often engaged lawyers and submitted appeals in support of their claims:
It is the money that counts, kind of. There are many rich people who buy both one and two lots and then start to build, and then maybe they do things that they actually are not allowed to do.
And then they have so many resources that they kind of get it through anyway because the municipality cannot afford to go to court.
Thus, local residents felt that in some contexts second home owners were more able to challenge the municipality’s existing laws and rules and succeed.
Finnøy has also attracted many wealthy city people as second home owners and class distinctions were an issue for some of the interviewees, in common with those from Hol.
One local resident recounted an instance when the ferry was full, and many second home owners were left on the quay facing a three-hour wait. One of the second home owners with a high-level professional position in Stavanger phoned the ferry operators and demanded that the ferry returned to pick them up straight afterwards, a request that was granted.
Many local residents were upset over the incident as they felt this was a situation that they themselves never could make happen. Thus, also thesocialcapital of second home owners can be of some concern to some local residents.
The perception that second home owners possess different kinds of capital that potentially give them more power than local residents, makes the latter more or less hostile towards second home owners collectively. Second home owners are perceived as a threat and locals feel little benevolence towards them. The benefits of second home tourism are thus likely to be overshadowed by perceived class distinc- tions. Even if second home owners leave many resources behind they are still categorized as ‘the undeserving’ if they
NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 65 (2011) Second home owners’ pursuit of interests in the host community 171
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
appear to be a group with more power than local residents in general. Accordingly, second home owners are also per- ceived tothreatenlocal residents and their shared resources, and thus community boundaries are drawn between the two parties: second home owners are viewed as guests, who should not raise their voice in the host community.
Second home owners perceived as self-centred ‘others’
The interviewees who view second home owners more or less as guests without rights, due to their lack of contribution or to class distinctions, reflect an understanding that second home owners differ from local residents in a way that negatively affects the community. As one of the Karlsøy residents explained: ‘If you see them in relation to the locals. . . It is something about what kind of interests you have in an area, and the way you live when you are there.’
The residents do not necessarily think that there is anything wrong with second home owners as people; rather, they are defined as qualitatively different from the local residents based on the fact that they are living in another place and are perceived as having other priorities which are not good for the community.
Residents who consider second home owners as guests without rights typically see them as less collectively oriented than the locals: ‘I think that to the degree they are engaging in things here, it is more because of egoistic regards than out of regard for the municipality and the community’ (Hol resident). The quotation reflects an understanding of second home owners as mainly acting in accordance with their own self-interests, while the locals are perceived as being com- munity minded. Jenkins (2008, 141), referring to Cohen’s theoretical work, points out that ‘communal identification evokes our difference from them as well as our similarity to each other’. In line with this, local residents’ ‘boundary work’ seems to involve generalizations regarding both parties, which result in both a denigration of ‘them’ and a glorification of ‘us’.
Discussion
Although the data show differences of degree in both directions regarding the position that local residents think second home owners should have in their community, the local residents in this study can roughly be divided in two different categories: one that accepts second home owners’
pursuit of their own interests, and one that does not. The way local residents consider second home owners’ position in the host community appears to depend on the perceived supply of resources economic-material or social from second home owners to the host community. When second home owners are perceived to make significant contributions to the host municipality, they are identified as being among
‘the deserving’ and hence local residents accept second home owners’ demands. On the other hand, when local residents do not perceive that the second home tourism has any positive impacts on their community, or when the difference
in capital between the two parties is significant, second home owners are stereotyped as ‘the undeserving’ and their pursuit of their own interests is not accepted.
The significance of collective identification
None of the interviewees in the study identified second home owners as ‘the deserving’ based on the rationality that the latter belong to their community. With exception of the residents in more or less depopulated areas who want second home owners to betreatedas ‘the deserving’ to encourage them to become part of the community, the process of identification and the concept of community belonging appear to have no relevance to those who accept second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests: second home owners’ significant supply of resources alone is enough to create local acceptance of their demands. However, this does not imply that local citizenship status and community belonging is irrelevant to the subject of this article. The findings also show that local residents, when not perceiving any significant positive consequences from second home tourism, are critical of second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests in the host community, and they substantiate this criticism by pointing out that second home owners do not belong in their community. When no significant supply of resources is perceived, second home owners are identified as visitors by local residents; community boundaries are clearly drawn between the local residents and the second home owners, differences between the two parties are stressed, and second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests is not accepted. As such, the significance of community belonging is emphasized only by local residents that do not accept second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests in the community. This finding is reasonable because communities become visible at their boundaries (Cohen 1992), and the boundaries have no relevance to those who accept second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests.
While collective identification is based on the perception of difference and similarity, followed by exclusion and inclusion (Jenkins 2008), the stereotype of ‘the deserving’ appears rather to be a question of exclusion versusnon-exclusionfrom a community. To be stereotyped as ‘the deserving’ with regard to access to rights and shared resources, does not seem to require community inclusion, but on the other hand it clearly depends on non-exclusion. In this study community exclusion has been shown to be more or less synonymous with ‘the undeserving’, which clearly reflects the interest-based aspect of boundary work.
Protection of rural communities’ resources
In this study, second home owners’ supply of resources to their host community is assumed to have been of importance because the rural residents performed boundary work as members ofplace-basedcommunities and thus had territor- ial interests. Rural residents share a limited amount of economic-material resources through local citizenship as
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
well as immaterial resources through their formal right to influence decisions within a given area. In this way, such communities are not only based on perceived equalities among their members, but also the formal identification of
‘deserving’ residents has significance for the numbers of people sharing the limited resources of the area. Local residents’ symbolic construction of a community where second home owners are excluded can thus be seen as a (conscious or unconscious) attempt to monopolize the rural community’s resources.
The municipality of residence appears to a large degree to be of significance when it comes to rural residents’ opinions about second home owners’ pursuit of their own interests.
Tickamyer (2000, 806) underlines how particular places provide a locale that includes ‘a set of causal factors that shape social structure and process’. The second home municipalities in the present study have reached different levels of commodification and have had different degrees of economic-material outcomes based on second home tour- ism. Further, social needs differ from place to place, in accordance with the numbers of inhabitants. Hence, due to these contextual variations, local residents’ perceptions of the supply of resources are likely to differ between the municipalities. However, the analysis has also revealed variations in residents’ perceptions of second home tour- ism’s impacts on the host community within the studied municipalities, based on the residents’ priorities. Thus, boundaries that are perceived by some may not be percep- tible to others (Cohen 1992, 13).
Morally founded exclusion and non-exclusion
When second home owners are not registered local citizens, their formal obligations are limited. However, the findings in this study indicate that the interviewed rural residents expected second home owners to contribute to the host community in some way if they also wanted to make demands. In other words, the second home owners needed to demonstrate that they ‘deserved’ to have their demands accepted. The connection between supply of resources and community exclusion/non-exclusion thus seems to be linked in some way to moral judgements.
Community membership implies identification with a set of shared moral standards (Townsend & Hansen 2001), and such moral beliefs and practices differ with time and place (Smith 2000). However, reciprocity is a social norm that can be seen as an almost universal trans-cultural norm (Smith 2000, 39). Those who do not see any positive consequences from second home tourism seem to feel that, by making demands, second home owners are trying to take without giving something in return and consequently any lack of reciprocal actions is likely to result in their exclusion from the community (Smith 2000, 3940). The moral obligation to reciprocate is also felt by local residents themselves when second home owners are perceived to contribute signifi- cantly, something which results in broad acceptance of second home owners’ pursuit of own interests. As such, the significance of supplies of appreciated resources does not appear to simply owe to local citizens’ utility maximization.
Rather, when no resources are perceived to be supplied, non- citizens’ demands challenge moral norms in a way that activates the boundary work and processes of exclusion.
Briefly summarized, this study shows that non-local citizens may gain acceptance among citizens for the pursuit of their own interests, as long as the local citizens perceive that the non-local citizens are or will be making significant contributions instead of reducing and/or threatening the resources of the community. However, it is important to recognize that the findings could have been different if different types of study communities had been selected, or if the non-local citizens constituted another social category than second home owners. As previously mentioned, the symbolic construction of communities can be based on various common elements, and here the focus has been on place-based communities. It is likely that members of, for example, a religious community would emphasize common beliefs to a greater extent than resource supply when considering the question of exclusion versus non-exclusion of potential members. Further, as non-citizens, second home owners are usually equal to or better off than local residents with regard to general levels of prosperity, and therefore it is comprehensible that local residents will expect reciprocal behaviour from them. However, the situation might differ if non-local citizens are generally worse off than the local citizens. Then, it is conceivable that the social norm of reciprocity would be replaced by the social norm of solidarity. While reciprocity implies mutual two-sided ex- change, ‘[s]olidarity is a matter of altruistic, one-sided transactions, of helping those incapable of helping them- selves’ (Leitner & Lessenich 2003, 329). As such, the findings of this study may only be applicable under similar condi- tions.
Conclusions
In this article I have examined how second home owners can obtain acceptance among local residents for pursuing their own interests in the host community. The findings indicate that as long as local residents perceive that the presence of second home owners makes any kind of valuable contribu- tion to the host community (whether economic-material or social), and as long as class distinctions are not too evident, second home owners are identified as ‘deserving’ and may be free to make their voices heard and claim a position in the host community.
As mentioned earlier, other second home literature points to how second home owners’ interests and lifestyles differ from those of local residents’ and assume that this gives grounds for conflicts between the two groups. Based on the findings of this study, I argue that it is not second home owners’ otherness from locals regarding contradictory inter- ests that is the main problem in cases of a conflictual climate between the two parties. The findings indicate that it is not what type of interests second home owners pursue that is most relevant, but rather whether they should pursue their interests at all in cases where locals perceive that they do not benefit. As such, with regard to municipalities’ established money-generating services and recoveries, the local structural
NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 65 (2011) Second home owners’ pursuit of interests in the host community 173
Downloaded by [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] at 03:46 05 February 2016
context constitutes a problem if it does not allow second home owners to contribute the community. As long as second home owners demand to be taken into account in the host community, it is crucial that their presence clearly appears to represent a resource for the host community. If not, the demands of second home owners will be perceived as trying to take without giving.
Even though many rural municipalities encourage second home development in the hope of expected positive effects for the local economy and development, not all of them have utilized the potential for local profit in economic terms.
Second home owners’ stays in host communities generally imply a demand for local products and services which is directed at the construction and building sector, the consumption merchandise sector, and municipal service and management (Ericsson et al. 2005). Municipal govern- ments should work on providing a range of products and services to satisfy such demands, not only to improve economic-material benefits but also because this approach is likely to have a positive impact on the social climate in host communities.
As Paris (2009) points out, in common with second home owners, local residents are a heterogenic group with different standpoints and interests. As long as local residents perceive that second home owners’ presence is useful to their community, the latter’s pursuit of their own interests can be tolerated, and places with second home tourism do not need to be characterized by tension any more than other places populated by (an heterogenic mass of) full-time residents.
Manuscript submitted 15 June 2010; accepted 23 February 2011
References
Anderson, B. 2006.Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, London.
Arnesen, T. & Overva˚g, K. 2009. Fritidsboligene og Utlendinger: Om Transnasjonalt Eierskap av Fritidsboliger i Fjellomra˚der i Norge. ØF- rapport nr. 07/2009. Østlandsforskning, Lillehammer.
Aronsson, L. 2004. Place attachment of vacation residents: Between tourists and permanent residents. Hall, D.M. & Mu¨ller, D.K. (eds.) Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, 7586. Channel View, Clevedon.
Clendenning, G. & Field, D. 2005. Seasonal residents: Members of commu- nity or part of the scenery? Green, G.P., Deller, S.C. & Marcouiller, D.W.
(eds.) Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods and Public Policy, 216236. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Cohen, A.P. 1992. The Symbolic Construction of Community. Routledge, London.
Coppock, J.T. 1977. Issues and conflicts. Coppock, J.T. (ed.)Second Homes:
Curse or Blessing?195214. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Crow, G. & Allan, G. 1994.Community Life: An Introduction to Local Social Relations. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Ericsson, B., Arnesen, T. & Overva˚g, K. 2005.Fra Hyttefolk til Sekundærbo- satte: Et Forprosjekt.ØF-rapport nr. 04/2005. Østlandsforskning, Lille- hammer.
Farstad, M., Rye, J.F. & Alma˚s, R. 2009.By, Bygd og Fritidsboliger 2008:
Kommentert Frekvensrapport.R-10/09. Norsk senter for bygdeforskning, Trondheim.
Flemsæter, F. 2009. From ‘home’ to ‘second home’: Emotional dilemmas on Norwegian smallholdings.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 9, 406423.
Gallent, N., Mace, A. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. 2005.Second Homes: European Perspectives and UK Policies. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Halseth, G. 1998.Cottage Country in Transition: A Sociological Geography of Change and Contention in the Rural-recreational Countryside. McGills- Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
Jenkins, R. 2008.Social Identity. 3rd ed. Routledge, London.
Kaltenborn, B.P. 1997a. Nature of place attachment: A study among recreation homeowners in southern Norway.Leisure Sciences19, 175189.
Kaltenborn, B.P. 1997b. Recreational homes in natural settings: Factors affecting place attachment.Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift51, 187198.
Kaltenborn, B.P., Andersen, O. & Nellemann, C. 2009. Amenity development in the Norwegian mountains: Effects of second home owner environmental attitudes on preferences for alternative development options. Landscape and Urban Planning91, 195201.
Kymlicka, W. & Norman, W. 1994. Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory.Ethics104, 352381.
Lamont, M. & Molna´r, V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences.Annual Review of Sociology28, 167195.
Leitner, S. & Lessenich, S. 2003. Assessing welfare state change: The German social insurance state between reciprocity and solidarity.Journal of Public Policy23, 325347.
Lowndes, V. 1995. Citizenship and urban politics. Judge, D., Stoker, G. &
Wolman, H. (eds.)Theories of Urban Politics, 160180. Sage, London.
Marjavaara, R. 2008.Second Home Tourism: The Root to Displacement in Sweden?Doctoral dissertation. GERUM 2008:1. Umea˚ University, Umea˚.
Mu¨ller, D.K. 2002a. Reinventing the countryside: German second-home owners in southern Sweden.Current Issues in Tourism5, 426446.
Mu¨ller, D.K. 2002b. German second homeowners in Sweden: Some remarks on the tourism migrationnexus. Revue Europe´enne des Migrations Internationales18, 6786.
Mu¨ller, D.K., Hall, C.M. & Keen, D. 2004. Second home tourism impact, planning and management. Hall, D.M. & Mu¨ller, D.K. (eds.) Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, 1532. Channel View, Clevedon.
Overva˚g, K. & Berg, N.G. 2009. Second homes, rural idyll and contested space issues in eastern Norway. Overva˚g, K. Second Homes in Eastern Norway: From Marginal Land to Commodity. Paper 2 (37 pp.). Doctoral theses at NTNU 2009:238, Norwegian University of Science and Technol- ogy (NTNU), Trondheim.
Paris, C. 2009. Re-positioning second homes within housing studies: House- hold investment, gentrification, multiple residence, mobility and hyper- consumption. Housing.Theory and Society26, 292310.
Smith, D.M. 2000. Moral Geographies: Ethics in a World of Difference.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Stedman, R. 2006a. Understanding place: Attachment among second home owners.American Behavioral Scientist50, 187205.
Stedman, R. 2006b. Places of escape: Second-home meanings in Northern Wisconsin, USA. McIntyre, N., Williams, D. & McHugh, K. (eds.)Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity, 129144.
CABI, Wallingford.
Tickamyer, A.R. 2000. Space matters! Spatial inequality in future sociology.
Contemporary Sociology29, 805813.
Townsend, N.W. & Hansen, K.V. 2001. Community, expression of. Smelse, N.J. & Baltes, P.B. (eds.)International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral SciencesVol. 4, 23552359. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Turner, B.S. 2001. Outline of a general theory of cultural citizenship.
Stevenson, N. (ed.)Culture and Citizenship, 1132. Sage, London.
Tuulentie, S. 2006. Tourists making themselves at home: Second homes as a part of tourist careers. McIntyre, N., Williams, D. & McHugh, K. (eds.) Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity, 145 157. CABI, Wallingford.
Tuulentie, S. 2007. Settled tourists: Second homes as a part of tourist life stories.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism7, 281300.
Woods, M. 2006. Political articulation: The modalities of new critical politics of rural citizenship. Cloke, P., Marsden, T. & Mooney, P. (eds.)Handbook of Rural Studies, 457471. Sage, London.
